Were the gospels eyewitnesses?

20,215 Views | 316 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by AstroAg17
lespaul
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:38a, 3/23/17
AG
Seems like such a simple question, but I have been researching this for years and it automatically starts heated conversations. On one side you have folks like Bart Ehrman who says absolutely not. On the other side is a wide range of folks saying absolutely yes (the position taught in most Sunday schools).

What do you think? Yes or no? What facts do you use to support your position?

I am not trying to stir up controversy. An important thing to mention that even if the gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses, it doesn't diminish Christianity in any way (you can take Ehrman's position and still be a Christian without problem).

I am just trying to follow the facts to the highest probability of truth.
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:33a, 3/23/17
Matthew, Mark, and John were. Luke was not and comprised his from eyewitnesses.
Reply Quote
13
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to lespaul • 10:41a, 3/23/17
AG
My guess is that there were written texts from the actual eyewitnesses that were passed down over the first century. The earliest copies of these texts, if I'm not mistaken, date to a period after the named authors would have died. So I just assume the oldest existing texts are copies of the lost originals.

I have nothing to back that up. Just my own view.
Reply Quote
lespaul
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:55a, 3/23/17
AG
So RetiredAg votes no and Martin votes yes (to three of them)
Reply Quote
Jim Hogg is angry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 10:55a, 3/23/17
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:
Matthew, Mark, and John were. Luke was not and comprised his from eyewitnesses.
My friend MQB is correct, as usual. Many people erroneously interchange "discplies" and "apostles", but an apostle is one who had a personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus Christ and was sent out by HIM. Matthew, Mark, and John's Gospel (the latter of which was the only apostle that didn't die as a martyr), wrote their accounts from first hand experience with the Earthly and resurrected ministry of Jesus Christ. Luke penned his gospel and the Book of Acts (basically the historian of the early church), as the traveling physician and colaborer with the Apostle Paul. Though Paul was not numbered among the original twelve apostles, his experience with Jesus Christ on the Damascus Road (and ultimate conversion) qualified him to be an apostle.

Paul penned at least thirteen epistles, and most likely fourteen (Hebrews). So his being an apostle and authorizing most of the New Testament furthers the validity of Luke's Gospel (not to mention all his epistles bear unity with the four gospels).
Reply Quote
9
2 edits
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:02a, 3/23/17
The number 1 place to start would be to see if any of the writers claim to be eye witnesses? Then the next question would be, "is it reasonable to believe that they are telling the truth." If none of the writers claim to be eye witnesses does their testimony indicate that it's reasonable to believe that they were?

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life John

Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? - Paul
Reply Quote
5
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to lespaul • 11:18a, 3/23/17
AG
lespaul said:
So RetiredAg votes no and Martin votes yes (to three of them)
I wouldn't say I'm a "no". I would say the earliest texts we have come from eyewitness accounts. So, if you're asking if the earliest surviving texts were written by the Apostles, I'd say no. But if you're asking if the gospels were written by the Apostles, I'd say yes. I just think the earliest surviving texts were based on texts authored by folks like Matthew, Mark and John.
Reply Quote
Woody2006
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:02p, 3/23/17
AG
I vote that the gospels are the result of a multi-decade game of telephone.
Reply Quote
12
Post removed:
by user
In reply to Jim Hogg is angry • 1:18p, 3/23/17
FlyFish95
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Woody2006 • 2:16p, 3/23/17
Woody2006 said:
I vote that the gospels are the result of a multi-decade game of telephone.
Of course you do.
Reply Quote
2
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FlyFish95 • 2:27p, 3/23/17
AG
DryFly said:
Woody2006 said:
I vote that the gospels are the result of a multi-decade game of telephone.
Of course you do.

Its still a more generous description than I would have given to them.
Reply Quote
4
lespaul
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:49p, 3/23/17
AG
for those voting that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, what is your rebuttal to Ehrman's claims that they aren't? He seems to be a very respected expert very much plugged into the research community (doesn't mean he is right though). In other words, he isn't a nut with crazy ideas and he asserts without any softening terms that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to lespaul • 5:10p, 3/23/17
Ehrman is far from the only scholar to believe the gospels were written decades after the events they describe. In fact, that's the generally held position based on what evidence we do have.
Reply Quote
12
chuckd
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:24p, 3/23/17
AG
Taking for granted that the gospels were written by who they are traditionally attributed to,

Matthew was an eye witness (Matt. 9:9, etc.). Mark is widely known to be a companion of Peter, but unknown if he was an eyewitness to Jesus. Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus given his pronoun change in Acts 16 from "they" to "we." John was an eyewitness (Matt. 4:21, etc.).
Reply Quote
jkag89
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:41p, 3/23/17
The Gospels: Where Everybody Knows Your Name
by Mark Shea
Quote:
In his book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" (Eerdmans, $30), New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham argues that the evangelists are obedient to the conventions, not of myth-writing, but of ancient Greco-Roman historiography and biography. For ancients, lacking the kind of easily accessible massive archives we are used to, the conviction was that "you could only write real history within living memory of the events. Real history was contemporary history," writes Bauckham. And so eyewitness testimony was extremely important.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jkag89 • 5:46p, 3/23/17
Except we know that's not remotely true of classical histories and biographies that were very well respected and widely read. Many were decades or even centuries removed from the events.
Reply Quote
3
jkag89
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 5:56p, 3/23/17
Dr. Watson said:
Except we know that's not remotely true of classical histories and biographies that were very well respected and widely read. Many were decades or even centuries removed from the events.
Did you only read the quoted part or did you take time to read the whole article?
Reply Quote
4
Jim Hogg is angry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:57p, 3/23/17
AG
The Textus Receptus is the most preserved document in all of antiquity with more than ~25K manuscripts, all bearing perfect unity. That's more than 4 times copies of the second most preserved writing (Homer's Iliad).

Reply Quote
7
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jkag89 • 6:29p, 3/23/17
jkag89 said:
Dr. Watson said:
Except we know that's not remotely true of classical histories and biographies that were very well respected and widely read. Many were decades or even centuries removed from the events.
Did you only read the quoted part or did you take time to read the whole article?


I read the article and a couple other reviews out of curiosity. It seemed to me that you thought the quoted passage was of unique importance. Otherwise you wouldn't have quoted it.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jim Hogg is angry • 6:34p, 3/23/17
TampaBayAg said:
The Textus Receptus is the most preserved document in all of antiquity with more than ~25K manuscripts, all bearing perfect unity. That's more than 4 times copies of the second most preserved writing (Homer's Iliad).



You mean the document put together by Erasmus? Or the disparate pieces of Latin and Greek translations that are clearly not the originals?
Reply Quote
1
jkag89
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 6:43p, 3/23/17
Dr. Watson said:
jkag89 said:
Dr. Watson said:
Except we know that's not remotely true of classical histories and biographies that were very well respected and widely read. Many were decades or even centuries removed from the events.
Did you only read the quoted part or did you take time to read the whole article?


I read the article and a couple other reviews out of curiosity. It seemed to me that you thought the quoted passage was of unique importance. Otherwise you wouldn't have quoted it.
I first read this article several months ago. I quoted that particular segment solely because it referenced the larger work on which the article was based.
Reply Quote
1
booboo91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to lespaul • 7:08a, 3/24/17
lespaul said:
for those voting that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, what is your rebuttal to Ehrman's claims that they aren't? He seems to be a very respected expert very much plugged into the research community (doesn't mean he is right though). In other words, he isn't a nut with crazy ideas and he asserts without any softening terms that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.
Ehrman is a liar in my book, by not telling the entire story. He intentionally leaves important evidence that he knows exist out, because it hurts his claims. He does this over and over. He is sharp and intelligent, much of what he says is true. Need to watch out for his closing statements- that is where the BS gets thick. Just search Ehrman on here and you can get all the specific details.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
booboo91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to lespaul • 7:16a, 3/24/17
To To the question where the Gospels an Eye witness account? Answer Yes and No. Tradition has (2) Gospels were and 2 were not. Lets look at the facts that most everyone agrees with:

1) Timeline: Jesus Dies in 33 AD, St. Paul's Epistles were in the 50s, St. Paul and Peter Die- roughly 67 AD, Temple Destroyed 70 AD- this is a huge time date marker.

2) Matt, Mark and Luke are very similar- copied off one another. Mark appears first, when scholars look at the text comparisons and the minor corrections. Most agree John was written last in roughly 90 AD. Most think gospels written after 70 AD destruction of temple but lots of evidence that push for early date. So in a nutshell Mark, Matt, Luke could of been written 50s-70s

3) Gospel According To- means the author had influence. There could of been one or more scribes. We see this in St. Paul's letters, he had scribe assist him at times.

4) The evidence that exists is that the Apostles were around while the Gospels were being written- thus they are first hand account.
Reply Quote
1 edit
booboo91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:25a, 3/24/17
I love Jimmy Akin- the dude is a stud- Encyclopedia Brown of the Bible. Here is good article refuting folks that pushed for far date of Gospels. Jimmy Akin- Dating of Gospels- Jesus Seminar should go back to school

Here are a few bits of evidence on earlier date:

1) The book of Acts mentions Luke's gospel and it closes very suddenly in A.D. 62, while Paul is awaiting trial in Rome. Everyone reading it would be very concerned to know how the trial turned out, and the most logical explanation is that Acts cuts off in A.D. 62 because that is when it was written. There was no result to Paul's trial because it hadn't happened yet. Since Acts mentions Luke's gospel, Luke must have been written some time earlier at least a year meaning it was composed within about thirty years of the crucifixion.

Booboo Comment: Most think Luke was the 3rd Gospel written- so Matt and Mark need to before Luke written 62?

2) Last year a German scholar announced the discovery of several fragments of Matthew's gospel known as the Huleatt fragments and based on the age of the manuscript and the style of writing they contain, the most likely date for them is around A.D. 50.

Fragments of Mark's gospel have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls, which were sealed away in caves during the Jewish War of A.D. 66-70, ensuring an early date for Mark. This continual pushing back the dates of the gospels by archaeology creates a problem for modern liberal professors, like those of the Jesus Seminar, since it leaves very little time for the image of the historical Jesus to be distorted.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
booboo91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:28a, 3/24/17
I think the general acceptance of scholars that St. Paul writings being in the 50s is a huge time stamp marker. St. Paul was with Apostles at this time, so it is logical to think during this time there would be some type of Gospel written, " Q" document? note: there is no evidence for Q, this is pure speculation by scholars
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to booboo91 • 8:05a, 3/24/17
The Huleatt fragments are consistently dated to the late second century and the idea that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a verse of Mark are almost universally rejected. You want to bash Ehrman at every turn and ignore the problems with your own sources.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to booboo91 • 10:33a, 3/24/17
AG
Booboo you've never read him (or anyone for that matter as best I can tell) and your critique of him is pretty weak. You do realize the strong majority of his arguments are actually not Developed by him but standard teaching in seminary?. Which of his arguments do you feel aren't reflected by the majority of scholars? You can call him sensational at times, but you make yourself a liar by calling him one.
Reply Quote
5
FlyFish95
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:38a, 3/24/17
Q could very well be an eyewitness account written at that time or shortly after that all other gospels were taken from and expanded upon based on what that particular written wanted to say or emphasize, potentially taking into account research from other sources. It's not really all that different than how stuff is written today.
Reply Quote
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 11:08a, 3/24/17
Aggrad08 said:
Booboo you've never read him (or anyone for that matter as best I can tell) and your critique of him is pretty weak. You do realize the strong majority of his arguments are actually not Developed by him but standard teaching in seminary?. Which of his arguments do you feel aren't reflected by the majority of scholars? You can call him sensational at times, but you make yourself a liar by calling him one.

This times 1billion.

The Ehrman stick is getting old. As several have pointed out, Those dates Ehrman espouses are COMMONLY held in the scholarly community.
Reply Quote
2
craigernaught
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:54a, 3/24/17
AG
The gospel writers were almost certainly not eyewitnesses.

Even if they were eyewitness accounts, much of the story presented would not be information available to eyewitnesses. An eyewitness would not be able to know the inner thoughts of Herod, Pilate, Jesus, or a number of other characters in the story or events that are happening far away from Jesus. Furthermore, whether or not it is "eyewitness testimony" makes absolutely no difference in its religious value. I cannot understand why so many traditionalist Christians are so set on the idea of it being an eyewitness account except for the sake of being anti modern scholarship.

The literary issues alone preclude it from them being first-person accounts, but other issues abound such as basic geographic errors, issues with language and syntax, and numerous anachronisms. These stories are almost certainly written to be performed orally (which would mean differences in presentation and performance by the speaker) and based on numerous oral traditions of Jesus and also other written sources dependent on earlier oral traditions.

I really wish the demonization of people like Ehrman or "liberals" in general would end. This type of tribal moralizing does nothing positive for Christians, nor does it advance our understanding of the ancient world. It's probably the most frustrating feature of the R&P board.
Reply Quote
7
craigernaught
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:57a, 3/24/17
AG
Quote:
" Q" document? note: there is no evidence for Q, this is pure speculation by scholars
This is false and once again displays a serious lack of understanding of modern scholarship. Literary evidence is evidence.
Reply Quote
10
FlyFish95
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to craigernaught • 9:47p, 3/24/17
craigernaught said:
Quote:
" Q" document? note: there is no evidence for Q, this is pure speculation by scholars
This is false and once again displays a serious lack of understanding of modern scholarship. Literary evidence is evidence.


Far from hard science.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
fahraint
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:03a, 3/25/17
Yes, I think they were eyewitnesses
Reply Quote
2
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FlyFish95 • 3:13p, 3/25/17
AG
Plagiarism isn't something that happens on accident. There is no "great minds think alike" defense for plagiarism. You are simply expelled, there is no credible argument for it actually occurring naturally. In ancient times, plagiarism wasn't anything immoral or frowned upon like today, but it's no less certain that it happened. Luke and Matthew had access to mark and simply copied it into their own accounts. But they also copied something else (or one of them copied the other) in some other passages not included in mark. Since they also show disagreement (like totally different nativity stories) it doesn't seem likely they were copying each other. Markan priority is a slam dunk, just like any modern plagiarism claim. A Q document is strongly evidenced, and the only real way out is to say that either matthew or luke copied the other, but for some reason chose not to copy (or even outright disagree) on other parts. Your only alternative is they "accidently" wrote the exact same thing word for word-something virtually without precedent.
Reply Quote
4
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 5:48p, 3/25/17
Quote:
Your only alternative is they "accidently" wrote the exact same thing word for word-something virtually without precedent.


You've never taught college students, I assume. You'd be shocked at how frequently honest, hard-working students manage to write the exact same thing as Wikipedia by total accident.
Reply Quote
3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.